| Title |
The Structural Features of Sports and Race Betting Inducements: Issues for Harm Minimisation and Consumer Protection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-016-9642-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nerilee Hing, Kerry Sproston, Kate Brook, Richard Brading |
| Abstract |
Minimal research has been published about inducements for sports and race betting, despite their ready availability and aggressive advertising. This paper aimed to document the range and structural features of these inducements, and analyse their alignment with the harm minimisation and consumer protection goals of responsible gambling. A scan of all inducements offered on the websites of 30 major race and sports betting brands located 223 separate inducements which we categorised into 15 generic types, all offering financial incentives to purchase. These comprised sign-up offers, refer-a-friend offers, happy hours, mobile betting bonuses, multi-bet offers, refund/stake-back offers, matching stakes/deposits, winnings paid for 'close calls', bonus or better odds, bonus or better winnings, competitions, reduced commission, free bets to selected punters, cash rebates and other free bets. All inducements were subject to numerous terms and conditions which were complex, difficult to find, and obscured by legalistic language. Play-through conditions of bonus bets were particularly difficult to interpret and failed basic requirements for informed choice. Website advertisements for inducements were prominently promoted but few contained a responsible gambling message. The results were analysed to generate 12 research propositions considered worthy of empirical research to inform much needed regulatory reform in this area. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,023,991
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#64
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,818
of 342,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.